With complementarity, a fully harmonic
interpretation of Bible and nature is, in principle, possible. Both atheistic evolutionism
and young-earth anti-evolutionism are unrealistic. Macroevolution is still fully
speculative: evolutionary mechanisms are inadequate, evolutionary evidences ambiguous.
There are fundamental limits to empirical investigation in the transastronomical size of
the combinatorial space of genomes and in the contingency of elementary events. But
biblical evidence allows for evolution. The all-embracing providential activity of the
Creator and the personal dignity of the human creature are tentatively presented as
theological arguments in favor of evolution as God's method of creation.

World
Views and Axioms

The question of the
origin of life may be approached from various different viewpoints. Much confusion in this
area results because presuppositions are not stated, concepts are used without a clear
definition, or different categories are confused.

I believe that there is an objective
reality or truth, and that we can, partially and in various ways, get to know truth.
According to the Old and New Testaments, God is the Creator, and everything else that
exists ultimately owes its existence to Him. This is the theistic view of creation.
In contrast to the deistic view, it includes the belief in God's continuing
creative activity in sustaining and governing the created realm. In contrast to the pantheistic
view, it implies that the Creator and the creation are absolutely distinct...without, of
course, denying any contact he might choose to have with his creation. Atheism
(and, in practice, agnosticism) seems to have a close affinity to some forms of pantheism.
Its god may be matter-energy itself. Religion appears to be an innate tendency of all
humans.

Most Christians believe the Bible to
represent a special revelation from God, but do not claim it to be the product of any kind
of mechanical dictation by his Spirit. The Bible's subject is clearly theological: God's
dealings with mankind. Anyone trying to deduce non-theological matters from its statements
has to keep in mind this primary focus. Nevertheless, the fact of its inspiration implies
that treating it merely like any other book would be inadequate. It is God's Word in human
words. As such it absolutely transcends human minds, and we are not in a position to judge
this "input from above."

This far, all Christians would probably
agree, but many do not seem to appreciate that, as a consequence, we do not dispose of the
criteria necessary to sort out what is human from what is divine in the biblical texts.
Might God be willing to tolerate human errors to be introduced into these writings, as
long as this would not thwart his intentions? Being absolutely truthful and kind, he would
not want to let any sincere readers of his Word be confused by untruths. His revelation in
the Word may be compared with his natural revelation in creation. Natural scientists would
not expect to find any genuine inconsistencies in nature. If they do find apparent
contradictions, they will be convinced of the inadequacy of their understanding instead.
Therefore, I believe the Bible (in its originals) to be free from errors, just as nature
is consistent.

Although the Bible's main thrust is
clearly theological, not scientific, it does occasionally touch on aspects of nature. I am
not advocating the use of such statements as the basis for investigations in the realm of
natural science, but I expect that once we have understood them properly, we will not find
any errors. Certainly the authors were not infallible, but I believe God kept them from
committing any errors to the biblical texts.

Life and
Complementarity

Occasional biblical
statements seem to contradict what we know from nature. There are two inadequate
responses: a philosophical warfare mentality, which considers scientists blind or the
Bible out of date; or isolationism, which believes biblical texts are wholly uncorrelated
with any non-theological reality. Exponents of these views tend to lack patience with the
"biblicism" of those who try to harmonize biblical remarks about nature with the models of
natural science.

If the Bible's focus of interest is
theological, then why should we want to consider it at all when asking questions about
nature? One motivation is apologetic. It is important to show that the alleged conflicts
between empirical reality and the Bible are based on faulty interpretations on either
side, and that, therefore, there is no excuse for not taking the Bible seriously. It has
to become clear that one can accept every biblical statement as true, without falling into
the trap of subverting science. On the other hand, I expect that a thorough understanding
of the real biblical teaching about creation and nature will give us important
epistemological guidelines governing our scientific inquiries. As God charged us with
cultivating the earth and caring for it, we may trust his Word to support us in this task.
Today's debate about the ethics of gene technology is a case in point. And it will clearly
be influenced by our beliefs about creation and evolution.

As our comprehension of both nature and
the Bible is partial, the models of both natural science and theology remain
approximations to the truth, and occasional inconsistencies between different parts of our
view of reality are probably unavoidable. But such difficulties often contain the seed of
a deeper understanding if dealt with properly. If they persist after careful scrutiny of
the facts on both sides, they may represent complementary aspects of the truth.1

Physicists have invoked complementarity to
describe the apparent contradiction between the wave and particle aspects of light. This
unexpected realization has been of help in understanding quantum mechanics, which has
proved to provide a deeper insight into physical reality. The tension between the
apparently contradictory concepts of God's holiness and mercy lead theologians to a deeper
appreciation of the implications of Christ's substitutionary sacrifice on the cross.

The concept of complementarity may also be
applicable to questions like the origin of life or the nature of man, where complementary
aspects of reality from different disciplines, like natural science and theology, overlap.
Here, care has to be taken to respect the different domains of discourse. For instance, Homo
sapiens fossils may not always represent humans in the theological sense. But such
different aspects of the same reality must be fully compatible with each other.2Complementarity
between nature and the Bible implies the following principles:

(1) As God is the author of creation and
of revelation, there must be an ultimate harmony between the data from both
domains, even though we may not always be able to conceptualize it. Truth cannot
contradict truth.

(2) The data of natural science and
of theology have to be distinguished carefully from their interpretations, which
always remain provisional, subject to revision.

The
concept of complementarity may also be applicable to questions like the origin of life or
the nature of man, where complementary aspects of reality from different disciplines, like
natural science and theology, overlap.

(3) No observation of science and no
biblical statement (the data) may be taken out of its context when interpreting it,
lest we risk producing an apparent conflict. There are no context-free data. There is no
absolute objectivity of interpretation.

(4) Open questions are not
necessarily inconsistencies. Where we are not able to harmonize all observations, our
interpretation must be either faulty or incomplete.

Although life is a phenomenon open to
scientific investigation, it remains a largely unfathomed mystery. The simplest
autonomously viable entities, bacteria, are so complex that they have not even been
analyzed completely - let alone synthesized. Conceiving of how they could have been
produced by the interplay of random events on an initially lifeless earth is an even more
demanding task. Multicellular organisms represent enormously more complicated structures,
occurring in many fundamentally different forms. How were they produced?

The model of a recent creation is
incompatible with the empirical evidence available today.3 It is no longer an
acceptable option. Various old-earth creation models do not share this problem, but they
do not propose any specific, detailed creation mechanisms. At present, evolution is the
only creation model available for scrutiny by the methods of natural science. As the
possibility of an extraneous causation and governance cannot be ruled out, life must not
be tacitly presumed to have emerged and evolved autonomously. With the model of biological
evolution, two main problem areas have to be considered:

(1) Are there, apart from specific divine
guidance, adequate mechanisms for evolution? Does it work? Is the probability for
life of any conceivable kind to emerge and evolve high enough to make it not too
implausible at least once in our universe?

(2) Is there unambiguous evidence
for evolution? Atheists, of course, are dependent on evolution at least somewhere in the
universe. For them, there is just no way around it, no matter where the facts point.
Theists, on the other hand, are free to rationally weigh the evidence.

In biology, the question of the origin of
meaningful information is of crucial importance. In general, this is a very hard problem,
which in most contexts and with today's limited knowledge is too difficult to deal with.
Therefore, I want to concentrate on a few aspects which I feel might be amenable to some
investigation. The issues touched upon will be selected accordingly, while some others
will be mentioned in passing.

Microevolutionary
Mechanisms

For a realistic
evaluation of the adequacy of proposed mechanisms, a clear distinction has to be made
between microevolution and macroevolution. I define a macroevolutionary step
or development as any transition producing a fundamentally novel structure and function,
based upon a sequence of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) which is not derivable from a
previous one by means of a series of individually selected mutational steps, but only
through a random-walk process involving a series of nonselected intermediates. This
definition may not be conventional, but it points out a crucial distinction. The
assumption that any macroevolutionary event consists of a series of microevolutionary ones
is usually treated as axiomatic. If it holds, any distinction between the two modes of
evolution is basically irrelevant. An argument that it does not hold4
will be summarized below.

The mechanism of microevolution
consists of three distinct steps:

(1) Genomes can mutate,
producing genotypic variants.

(2) If expressed, these
may produce phenotypic variants.

(3) Natural (or
artificial) selection favors the reproduction of individuals better adapted to
their environment. In this way, relative fitness values of phenotypic variants with
respect to their current environment are defined.

Selection works on those variants which are in fact produced.
Can
we always count on some variant able to cope with a given environment
to be available
within a reasonable amount of time?

Thus, population gene pools, including
their individual constituent gene components, may possibly change with time. The three
observations are necessary conditions for evolution to happen. But are they sufficient?
Selection works on those variants which are in fact produced. Can we always count on some
variant able to cope with a given environment to be available within a reasonable amount
of time? Could all existing functions arise by these processes?

The feasibility of macroevolution
implies three more requirements:

(4) Occasionally,
new functions must emerge.

(5)
Functions must be improved.

(6) There must be
progressive chains of improvements.

These additional requirements will be
discussed. But first, microevolution needs some further comments.

Apart from point mutations, there are
other mechanisms producing variants, but they usually do not create any new functional
information. A definition of functional (constructive, or semantic) biological
information will be given below. Deletions and most insertions destroy such information:
sequence shufflings by genetic recombination, transposition, duplication and other
mechanisms move preexisting information. These other genome modifications may, of course,
have profound functional consequences, often on a regulatory level, but possible
constructive effects they might have on their target genes or larger contexts are likely
to occur very much less frequently than constructive effects of point mutations.

One has to distinguish between new
features produced by shuffling or recombining preexisting functionalities, on the
one hand, and new functional features which never existed before, but arose in
sequences having no function, or a different one, on the other hand. Although it might in
some cases be difficult to distinguish between these two kinds of novelty, it is clear
that many fundamentally new features must have been produced in the biosphere as a whole.
Unfortunately, the term "evolutionary novelty" is sometimes indiscriminately
applied to both of these possibilities. The first kind is certainly relevant for the
origin of biological information. A recent investigation led to the (still disputed)
estimate of 1000 to 7000 basically different protein exon or domain subunit families.5

Considerations of population genetics
are very important in an evaluation of evolutionary mechanisms. A mutation conferring a
selective advantage benefits its carrier immediately, but it will take some time to
penetrate an entire species. Its fixation, by elimination of the previous wild-type
allele, will take even longer. Penetration and fixation times increase not only with
decreasing selective advantage, but also with the size of the population. Because
individual selective advantages are typically quite small, this implies that large
populations are genetically very stable: in these, natural selection inhibits change and
promotes stability.6 A mutation conferring a disadvantage will usually be
eliminated quickly. The frequency of a selectively neutral one will drift, increasing and
decreasing randomly. In a large population, it will often be lost. On the average, the
general effect of these and other complications (interdependencies between different
genes, variability of the environment, etc.) will probably be to make harnessing
advantageous, or adaptive, mutations more difficult. Thus, considering individual
neutral and adaptive point mutations only will tend to overestimate the chances for
success of progressive evolution.

One has to
distinguish between new features produced by shuffling or recombining preexisting
functionalities and new functional features which never existed before...

Semantic
Information

The set of all
possible DNA sequences of a given length N defines a combinatorial space of 4N
configurations. For N=133, hardly enough for a small functional domain of a protein, this
number exceeds the estimated number of nucleons in the universe! But semantic,
meaningful, functional, or constructive biological information is not defined by this
combinatorial space of all possible sequences, since there may be sequence stretches which
are meaningless, variable, redundant, or synonymous with others.

The "meaning" of a genome or a gene is
defined by its biological function. Human symbolic languages provide an instructive
metaphor for the DNA "language." Only a limited fraction of the set of all possible symbol
sequences has any meaning at all, and the meaning is determined by various factors, such
as the context of a given human language, as expressed by its speakers and literature. How
large is the semantic information content of a given sentence? It depends on the
conventions governing the particular language, on the intention of the speaker, and
possibly on the situation of the message recipient. It is probably not too difficult to
estimate an average amount of synonymity between words. But how about "synonymous"
sentences, abstracts, personal messages, discussions, etc.? It is probably impossible to
measure these intensely personal specifications. Similarly, we can hardly hope to do more
than arrive at approximate estimates of lower or upper bounds for the amount of semantic
information contained in specific biological messages, such as protein domains or genes.

Can biological semantic information be
spontaneously generated? Can it originate without an information source of at least equal
semantic content? It is claimed that it is gradually produced by ?self-organization?
in a long series of microevolutionary events. Environments are certainly capable of
modifying gene pools. In a sense, a gene pool "asks questions" concerning its variant
genomes, and the environment "answers" them. In this way, some information is
generated by matching environment and gene pool. Such events constitute a mutational
random-walk exploration of the genomic configurational space available by a species.

But the amount of information that can be
collected in this way is basically limited by the scope of the set of variants which can
be produced. Certainly there is no limit to the mutations possible, but the detrimental
ones are eliminated and do not contribute to the functional information eventually stored.
In a conceivable extreme case of a genome optimally adapted to its environment, all
mutations may be detrimental, and no further information can be gleaned from the actual
environment.

But even when far from the optimum, the
evolutionary progress will often be frustrated. The macroevolutionary path leading to a
selectable better adaptation may contain configurations of lower adaptive value or too
many equivalent ones. Most non-detrimental mutations are believed to be selectively
neutral. Alternative nonlethal branches leading to dead ends may exist, increasing the
number of nonselected steps required - parallel and sequential - for the "wave-front" of
exploratory mutants to finally reach a selectable point. With too many dead end branches
too many trials are lost on them. With a mutation rate of 108 per nucleotide
replicated, two-step mutations are already too rare to be observable with bacteria in
large chemostats. Non-selected paths have to be very short in order to retain a reasonable
chance of realization, before the next uninteresting equilibrium stage with a large
stabilized population lacking a genuine novelty is reached. This unfavorable situation
does not represent an extreme case, but is characteristic for macroevolutionary paths.

In a conceivable extreme case of a genome optimally adapted to its
environment, all mutations may be detrimental, and no further information can be gleaned
from the actual environment.

Natural selection of a new function
presupposes a minimal functionality: where nothing is selectable, nothing can be
selected. This minimal functionality, therefore, must be produced by random processes. The
probability of its spontaneous emergence depends on its semantic information content, or
the size of the minimal specification required to define it,7 but not on the
possible pathways leading to it. It is, however, difficult to estimate the size of such
minimal specifications.

One approach might be to consider the
invariant configuration of a set of known sequences performing a given function in
different organisms. Certain sequence positions are observed to be occupied by the same
amino acids in all known versions of a protein of a given specificity. It is then assumed
that functionality requires these specific occupations. An analogous argument applies to
positions permitting a certain restricted variability. For good measure, all amino acids
chemically similar to the ones actually observed at a given position might be added to the
set of permissible ones (Yockey8). The totality of these restricted occupations
found for a given protein type constitutes its invariant configuration. This is a
lower-bound estimate for minimal functionality, since positional interdependencies and
species-specific requirements are ignored. It may be compared with an upper-bound estimate
of the longest feasible non-selected path.

Natural
selection of a new function presupposes a minimal functionality: where
nothing is selectable,nothing can be selected.

The result is that
reaching a given invariant by a mutational random walk within 300 million years is already
too improbable for three specific amino acids.9 This estimate, presupposing
3.05 codons per amino acid, 2.16 mutations per specific amino acid change (geometric
average), and a mutation rate of 108 per nucleotide replicated, is based on
very optimistic assumptions: 1016 moles C per year metabolized in the earth's
biosphere (today's total biomass production) consisting entirely of bacteria (5x106
nucleotide pairs and 1014 moles C per bacterium), and all of this DNA
continuously participating in this particular random walk. Yet known invariants
comprise not 3, but about 30 amino acids for basic enzyme functions, such as
cytochrome c or ribonuclease10, or at least 5 amino acids for additional
adaptations differing between groups of organisms.11 These requirements are
even below the real lower bounds for functionality, as they reflect unique occupations
only. At present, it is unknown whether any smaller invariants might provide some minimal
functions. The restrictions on functional structures, such as enzymes, are such that all
mutations we observe today are detrimental or at best neutral. To suppose otherwise for
earlier organisms is speculative.

Thus, the acquisition of the huge amounts
of functional information in the biosphere by random processes incurs preposterous
improbabilities.12 It is out of the question that a known invariant could have
been found by random processes - unless there are many other, unknown configurations
providing the same functionality. In this case, the exclusive occurrence of a single one
of all possible configurations would amount to a "frozen accident." It would provide a
strong argument for evolution happening, in fact, because in this case common functional
selection pressure would not explain the invariance. But it would also show that it is
rather difficult to accidentally hit a new functionality, which in turn would make it hard
to understand why so many different functions have been found at all. The number of
functional sequences would have to be transastronomically large, or else no lucky hits
could be expected. Yet the frequency of a given function among all possible sequences
would have to be very small, or else many differe

nt solutions to each problem should have
been found in different lines of descent.

Are the functional invariants found in the
biosphere frozen accidents or evidence of design? Does each of them
represent just one of a myriad of possible configurational sets or the only functional
one? Is functionality in configurational space rather frequent or extremely rare? I know
of no indications that it might be frequent; the few relevant observations available point
the other way.13 Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any way of finding
answers to these questions. The configurational space of all possible genomes is by far
transastronomical in extent.

To invoke an extraterrestrial origin of
biological information may expand the probabilities by at most a few orders of magnitude.
Even providing every star in the universe with a life-supporting planet - an assumption
which is certainly too optimistic14 - would be insufficient.

Thus, the
acquisition of the huge amounts of functional information in the biosphere by random
processes incurs preposterous improbabilities.

Even for a single protein domain of 100
amino acids, there are 10130 different sequences, coded by 10180
possible sequences of 300 nucleotides. In analogy to Yockey's15 estimate, at
most one among 1064 polypeptides of this length might be expected to display a
given enzymatic activity of the rather small complexity of cytochrome c. If there are 105
different enzymes, only one among 1059 polypeptides of length 100 may have any
enzymatic activity at all. To provide just one molecule of DNA coding for each of 1059
polypeptides would require 1019earth-sized planets, each containing an ocean 1
km deep, covering the planet's surface, of a concentrated solution (10 mmolar in
nucleotides) of single-stranded polynucleotides of length 300. As no "primitive" enzyme
activities are known, there is at present no conceivable way to reasonably reduce this
estimate. Yet, on the other hand, the smallest viral genome is 10 times larger, the
smallest genome of an autonomous organism 10,000 times. This means that it is in principle
impossible to cover an appreciable sample of the configurational genome space by any
conceivable method of investigation - experimental, computational, or otherwise. Science
cannot answer the information problem.

Is
Macroevolution Feasible?

I have postulated
three requirements for macroevolution, in addition to those necessary for the
microevolutionary mechanism: emergence of new functionalities, improvement by positive
mutations, and a reasonable prevalence of such constructive mutations to form progressive
chains of improvements.

When a new function is to emerge,
its minimal functionality must arise accidentally, before it can be selected. The possible
emergence of a new functionality in a hidden state (in a temporary pseudogene or under
cover of a different function) does not change this requirement, since the development of
a function which is not expressed must proceed by means of a random walk. Once a minimal
function is present, its further improvement by single-step mutations, under the influence
of natural selection, is conceivable. But at least the original emergence of this new
function must correspond to a macroevolutionary step, which is much more difficult, as has
been shown. Every one of the many different biological functions in the biosphere had to
arise at least once.

In order to explain how new functional
information could arise, the concept of a hierarchy of complexity has been proposed.
According to this view, a fundamentally new level of functionality might emerge, once the
complexity of the lower level structures has reached a certain degree. These ideas pertain
mainly to higher levels of biological complexity than the ones I am discussing here. They
certainly describe a biological reality,16 but do not provide an explanation
for the emergence of information in the individual hierarchical steps. The lowest and
simplest of these steps, describing the mutational random walk in a DNA sequence, might be
the most promising for investigating the origin of information, as much too little is
known regarding the higher hierarchical levels. Therefore, I refrain from discussing
hierarchy theory any further.

Each of the newly emerged minimal
functions must be capable of improvement by random mutation - up to the
near-perfection usually found in present organisms. This seems to be more easily
accomplished than the emergence of a new functionality, but it is not self-evident that it
is possible. Not even a single "positive" or adaptive mutation, in the sense of an
improved function previously unavailable, has been documented in any organism. Takeover of
functions from other organisms, by means of episomes, transduction, genetic recombination,
allele assortment and the like, cannot be counted as an emergence of a new or improved
function in the biosphere, nor can regaining a function lost previously, or the display,
under stress, of a temporarily unused function. A function which is available in
principle, but not used under normal conditions, may be induced under stress; but it is
lost again upon return to a natural-like environment, presumably because it represents an
additional burden on the organism. Observed alleles with slightly different
functionalities may indeed be related across a few mutations. But as they exist side by
side, we have no indication that either of them represents an evolutionary advance. Both
of them may be needed for full flexibility in different environmental, anatomical, or
developmental contexts. In any case, their relatedness by descent is an inference, not a
documented evolutionary improvement.

Not even a
single "positive" or adaptive mutation, in the sense of an improved function previously
unavailable, has been documented in any organism.

There must be progressive chains of
improvements. This implies that improvements are common, rather than exceptional
occurrences. Each of the macroevolutionary mutational paths between positively
selectable configurations must be very short and proceed by random processes composed of
neutral mutations only. A huge number of mutations must have caused successful functional
improvements, in order to produce today's biosphere. Furthermore, all parts of the
configurational space used by any species must be interconnected, as the biosphere is
believed to be monophyletic.

Useful configurations have to be found
rapidly, at least by some species on earth. There has not been much opportunity for
search processes. Four billion years is a very short time and the amount of earthly
biomass very small if compared to the immense number of possible DNA sequences! If the inhabitable
area within the configurational space is an infinitesimally small part of the total, by
far the largest part of the possible mutations in any given organism will be detrimental.
In all but very small populations, by far the largest part of the remaining ones will be
effectively neutral, and only the minute rest may have any potential interest for
evolution. The vast bulk of the exploratory trials will be lost - in
accordance with relevant observations.17 The huge amount of sophisticated
functional information known to exist in the biosphere would then appear to be sort of a
mystery. In order for evolution to be plausible, on the other hand, an appreciable
fraction of the combinatorial space would have to contain viable genomes. This certainly
applies for the region of the combinatorial space explored by life. But is there a reason
to believe this minute corner to be in principle different from any other region? Many random
DNA sequences would have to contain functionally meaningful stretches! Is this a
reasonable expectation? Huxley's typing monkey thought experiment suggests otherwise if
actually computed.

Although, as a rule, texts about evolution
do not even bother to mention such problems, none of these processes required for
macroevolution have been documented to occur. Furthermore, requirement (4), the origin of
new functions - which is an absolute prerequisite for (5) and (6- has been
shown to be likely to involve enormous improbabilities. As long as no hard facts to the
contrary are available, this fundamental difficulty must not be ignored!

Although,
as a rule, texts about evolution do not even
bother to mention such problems,none of these processes
required for macroevolution have been documented to occur.

Thus, the known evolutionary mechanisms
account for microevolution only, while macroevolution at present looks implausible.
(Denton18 forcefully raises the same issue, but does not
offer a solution.) Are these mechanisms, therefore, true evolutionary mechanisms at all?
If macroevolution does not occur, "microevolution" should not be called evolution at all.
It would then merely represent a mechanism for maintaining stability with some
variability, possibly some limited change and diversification, including speciation,
within a restricted character space, making such a species, genus, or family capable of
better coping with changing environments.

Evolutionary Evidences

The second approach to the question of the
reality of evolution is to consider the evidences adduced to support it. There is a host
of solid observations which can be interpreted in the evolutionary framework. Some of
these observations can be subjected to statistical tests and are sometimes shown to be highly
significant. But the crucial point is that each one of these observations is ambiguous
as far as its evidence for evolution is concerned. Occasionally, it has been claimed that
evolutionary theory has indeed passed critical tests, according to
Popper's19 strong criterion of falsifiability for scientific
theories. But in most cases, microevolution alone has been
tested.20 In others, tests were done against the implausible
null-hypothesis of randomness.21 As is shown below, all of
these observations are ambiguous because plausible alternative explanations exist, which
would make the evidence irrelevant for evolution. It may be difficult to conclusively show
which one of these alternative interpretations applies - or possibly both.
But as the proposition that there is no Creator is not demonstrable, the possibility that
evolution is an illusion has to be taken seriously.

(1) The evidence for highly significant similarities
between the features of different organisms is impressive. Some of these similarities
encompass the entire biosphere, and it is not surprising that for Dobzhansky "nothing in
biology makes sense apart from evolution."22 Yet, in each
single case, these similarities may be due to similar functional requirements.
Strictly speaking, the features concerned would then have to be called analogous, rather
than homologous. It is in practice impossible to prove that a given feature is absolutely
functionless in its total organismal and ecological environment. But if it has any useful
function, it is under selective pressure, and the feature just might have to be
similar in different organisms in order to be functional. Why are there so many occasions
where "convergent" or "parallel" evolution has to be
invoked?23 Evidently, there are many similarities which,
even in an evolutionary framework, are not indicative of a common descent. Such
functionalist considerations may apply even to weak similarities, whose functional
significance might be hard to detect. Very little is known, as yet, about context- or
species-specific functionalities, or about functional interdependencies among different
features. Again and again, DNA sequences once believed to be functionless are discovered
to have some function; usually the first indications are nonrandom features. After codon
synonymity, 5'- and 3'-noncoding gene sequences and introns, propositions for third codon
positions and at least some pseudogenes24 have joined the
list.

Plausible population dynamics
models explain why usually no fossils representing
the transitions should be found.
But in
order to find out whether evolution is real, we need positive evidence,
not explanations
for its lack.

(2) The similarities with respect to a
given feature between different organisms can be used to compute a similarity tree (or
cladistic tree) if the feature has measurable aspects. Significantly similarcladistic
trees of different features, but referring to the same group of organisms, are often
found. Does this prove evolution, as has been claimed? The null-hypothesis of a merely
accidental similarity between the trees.25 is unreasonable,
even within an evolutionary framework, because it ignores possible functional
interdependencies between the features considered. If there is a dependency between
different functions, their cladistic trees are bound to be similar. Such dependencies are
not the exception, but the rule! It is astonishing that the possibility of complete
independence between different features of a functional organism is even
considered.26 Of course, the correlations between functional
interdependencies and tree similarities need not be absolute, since the same problem is
sometimes solved in different ways - possibly due to other functional
correlations.

(3) In the history of life, there appears
to be a tendency of an increasing complexity of the organisms. Even if it is hard
or impossible to objectively define progress in life forms, may not this tendential
complexity increase indicate evolution? Not necessarily. It may just as well reflect the
requirements of a functioning ecology in the presence of an increasing diversity of
life forms. Such an increasing diversity, however, may fit a non-evolutionary paradigm
just as well.

(4) Fossils are very old, up
to almost one billion years for multicellular organisms, and possibly three billion for
single cells. This cannot be reasonably disputed.27 The
occurrence of life and death long before the advent of man has to be accepted. Yet this
does not rule out old-earth non-evolutionary models, such as the one of "progressive
creationism." Evidence for a long history of life is not evidence for
evolution.

(5) The fossil record displays many
obvious lines of descent, usually on the taxonomic level of the family or genus.
Some of them span millions of generations. It is an outstanding feature of the fossil
record that the origin of virtually none of these lines is
known.28 We do not see a "tree of life," but something like
a "bamboo thicket." For a long time, this fact has been neglected by evolutionary
biologists, and only relatively recently the model of "punctuated equilibria" has been
proposed.29 The lines of descent observed in the
fossil record represent the periods of equilibrium or stasis, while the transitions
corresponding to the punctuations of this model remain invisible (apart from
some reasonable but uninteresting transitions on lower taxonomic levels). Plausible
population dynamics models explain why usually no fossils representing the transitions
should be found. But in order to find out whether evolution is real, we need positive
evidence, not explanations for its lack. Is there evolution, or are there equilibria
without transitions?

Thus, we have to conclude that the
scientific evidence for evolution is ambiguous,30 in spite
of the many contrary claims.

Creation and Chance

Chance describes an observation made
regularly in connection with natural occurrences. The scientific concept of randomness
implies that it is not feasible or not possible to trace the cause of a given individual
event in the ensemble of an effect under consideration. The cumulative outcome of many
such events can often be described by stochastic theory, but the outcome of individual
events is unknown; it cannot be measured. The ultimate individual event, an elementary
event, involves a single elementary particle, such as an electron.

The cause of such an event is, as far as
science is concerned, in the invisible world. It may or may not be individually willed by
the Creator. Conceptually, there are different possibilities. Either he determines the
outcome of each elementary event individually, or he manages them collectively, e.g. by
specifying Gaussian normality, mean and standard deviation, or higher level principles,
not caring about individual events as such. Or he might imperceptibly guide chaotic
dynamic systems by means of a few disturbances. Chance is not an alternative to God's
action: it may be the usual way his creative activity "manifests" itself to us.

It is important to note that theism does
not present a "God of the gaps." God's activity is not restricted to events not
explainable by science, such as the cause of the Big Bang or of elementary events. How can
natural occurrences, which are usually believed to be deterministic, be said to be a
consequence of God's activity? The assumption of absolute determinism is erroneous. There
is no way of finding out what causes individual elementary events. But each macroscopic
event is ultimately composed of and influenced by elementary events not susceptible to
scientific investigation.

To call the specific
mutations leading to the selectable variant
a chance occurrence is equivalent to
pleading ignorance of causation:
the evolutionary step has not been explained.

It has traditionally been believed that
creation necessarily implies a miracle. But what is a miracle? God is continually active
in his created universe. His being the Creator cannot easily be separated from his being
the Sustainer. Anything happening according to "natural law" is just as much God's
doing as those of his "miracles" lacking ordinary causation. Natural scientists
recognize his normal activity as "natural law," because it is normal, reproducible, and
understandable. Apart from his ordinary acts, his "extraordinary" ones would not be
recognizable as such. Furthermore, God may do "miracles" entirely within "natural
law." A
biblical miracle is a theological concept: its essence is not lack of conformity to any
laws, but the spiritual message to be conveyed to the observers. Thus, the concept of a
miracle does not necessarily help understanding creation. It may cause confusion.

As far as God's methods in creation are
concerned, it may be worth while to briefly mention the widespread tendency to mix up
three issues which are quite distinct:

(1) divine authorship versus
material autonomy;

(2) an old versus a young earth;

(3) evolution versus no
macroevolution.

I consider the first issue
to be resolved for a theist, and similarly the second one for a natural scientist, while
the third one remains open. Belief in the autonomy of matter-energy makes belief in
evolution inevitable, belief in a young earth makes it impossible, but belief in creation
does not prejudge the issue.

Mutations in individual genetic
molecules are the crucial point in evolution, as any conceivable evolutionary development
is ultimately based on them. A natural mutation in a DNA molecule is a consequence of an
elementary event, such as a C14 decay or a cosmic ray
impact. Yet it may have consequences for an entire organism growing out of a germ cell
containing this DNA, and possibly for a species. Therefore, the physical cause for a given
evolutionary step can never be investigated, and there is in principle no way to get
around this ignorance.

It is customary to consider some selective
pressure the cause of a given evolutionary development. In doing so, one tacitly assumes
that any structure needed will automatically be produced by mutations sooner or later. But
the crucial link in the chain of causation is not natural selection, but the specific
mutations leading to the selectable variant. To call it a chance occurrence is equivalent
to pleading ignorance of causation: the evolutionary step has not been explained.

The demonstration of stochastic
distributions characterizing chance events cannot eliminate the possibility of a precise
providential predetermination by the Creator, should he choose to do so. In any case,
science has no way of finding out what causes individual elementary events. The claim that
there is "nothing but chance" behind mutations is non-scientific. It is a matter of
personal belief. Such a use of the concept of chance masquerading as science is an abuse
of the popular respect for science.

Warfare Paradigm

The "warfare" model, the belief that
creation and evolution are mutually exclusive, is shared by the two extreme positions of
dogmatic atheism and "recent-creationism." But is it true? Both views have serious flaws.
While the crucial difficulties the atheists face are with natural science,
the ones of the recent-creationists are with biblical theology. The denial
of a Creator makes the origin of information, and therefore evolution, definitely
implausible. On the other hand, a short-term, immediate creation, excluding all
developments, dissociates creation from natural science.

The evidence for creation,
although logically ambiguous, is persuasive to an upright seeker;
it
pervades all of creation.

There are serious scientific
arguments against evolution. They basically boil down to the insufficiency of natural
information sources. However, they only apply in an atheistic, not in a theistic,
framework of axioms. In nature, there is a tremendous amount of evidence for God's
marvelous activity, but none of it is of the kind of a mathematical proof. Probability
estimates yield remarkable results, but the inevitable uncertainty of the parameters
required leaves a loophole to those who do not choose to believe. God wants to be loved
out of a free decision, rather than a forced one. The evidence for creation,
although logically ambiguous, is persuasive to an upright seeker; it
pervades all of creation:

(1) The Anthropic Principle of cosmology
has been formulated by scientists who were surprised by the number of cosmological
constants which are "just exactly right" for life on earth to be possible at
all.31 Just a small increase or decrease in the value of any
one of over a dozen constants would have prevented galaxies, stars, the Earth, or the
elements required for life to be produced. This principle has been called "Anthropic" to
indicate that humans would not exist to observe the fact if any of these conditions were
not what they are to within small tolerances.

(2) Similarly, the environmental
conditions on Earth throughout its history display a remarkable collection of
"coincidences" conducive to life.32 Very small changes in
any of them could have made the Earth uninhabitable, like Venus or Mars.

(3) The origin and further development of life
imply such an unbelievable series of specific molecular events that the probability of
their occurrence is vanishingly small. This is true for the simplest protein domain
functions, let alone for whole enzymes, cells, organs, and organisms, or even realities
like soul and spirit.

These facts have been recognized by many
scientists, and even agnostics and atheists marvel. In order to appease their statistical
consciences, some resort to metaphysical speculations like a "many-worlds" hypothesis:
there might exist an infinity of universes besides our own, such that even the production
of life and of man is deemed "certain to occur somewhere," although in any single universe
the probabilities are infinitesimally small. Of course, these ideas are irrelevant if
there is a Creator.

On the other hand, the usual theological
arguments against evolution are based on questionable interpretations of both nature and
the Bible, and often a deistic philosophy. They falsely assume that creation and evolution
are alternative explanations within the same, scientific category. A model
consistent with both biblical theology and natural science may view them as complementary
explanations from different categories, instead.

God has given Adam the "cultural
mandate"
of obtaining dominion over the earth, in order to keep it and care for it. It is
reasonable to claim that this implies the application of science. The natural order is
comprehensible because God made man's mind congruent to his design of the universe. It is
no accident that the rise of modern observational and experimental science and technology
followed in the wake of the Reformation and the invention of printing, when a careful
study of the Scriptures became widespread.33 It is therefore
proper to expect consistent, reliable, truthful results of scientific investigations. But
it is not proper to expect misleading appearances in nature, such as an apparent age,
which would have to be corrected by scriptural revelation. God does not expect scientists
to deal with miracles violating natural law.

What is the theological implication of the
concordant evidences for high ages of the universe, the earth, and the fossils? God would
certainly be capable of producing an appearance of such ages in a miraculous fashion. But
since he is truthful - not only in revelation, but also in
creation - we should not expect him to do so. As many independent pieces
of evidence point to concordant high ages,34 their
cumulative nature has a force we dare not ignore. It would represent an offense to God's
character of veracity to postulate that he produced an appearance of something false.

Harmony Paradigm

Is theistic, or creative, evolution a
contradiction in terms, as recent-creationists claim? If the biblical evidence is
critically examined, the case against evolution is rather
weak.35 This may come as a surprise to many Christians
desiring to be faithful to the Bible - and to atheists desiring to get rid
of its claim. But particular translations and some traditional interpretations of the
biblical texts have definitely mislead many.36 Of course,
this has not been a problem as far as any central tenets of the Christian faith are
concerned. These are clarified abundantly throughout the Bible. It is obvious that God is
proclaimed as the Creator. But his creational procedures are not so
obvious - they are spiritual non-essentials.

If the biblical
evidence is critically examined,
he case against evolution is rather
weak.

A question of great importance which is
often raised in this context is the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Some argue that if the
Bible could be shown to be in error when it speaks about creation - even
about creational procedures - it could not be trusted when it speaks about
salvation, either. This is true, since the Christian faith depends on the reality of God's
revelation - and therefore the reliability of its expression in the Bible.
However, this still does not answer the question of whether creation is compatible with
evolution. An evaluation of contradictory claims in this area has to consider the biblical
contexts, the original languages, and all sciences involved in the topics touched upon. To
respect science does not mean to put fallible human activities on the same footing with
God's infallible revelation. Disputing the validity of certain interpretations like
young-earth creationism need not imply questioning God's Word. The creation is just as
much a product of God's doing as is the Bible. An evaluation of models of natural science
and biblical interpretations leads me to postulate the following compatibilities between
concepts of the two different categories:

(1) Creation may very well be
compatible with evolution. The claim that creation necessarily implies sudden
creation, using neither source material nor mediate processes, is contradicted by various
scriptural examples. God is persistently active in all so-called "natural" occurrences,
which are even occasionally described by the Hebrew term "bara'" (or Greek "ktizo")
specifically denoting God's creating. The miracle-only concept of creation restricts God's
realm of activity to production out of nothing. It is therefore deistic, rather than
theistic.

(2) The creation "days" of Genesis
1 may very well represent ages of unspecified duration, possibly overlapping. This
can be accepted without taking the text any less "literally."37 Considering Gen. 2:4 (of the same immediate
context!) and other passages, the "one-week short-day" interpretation is theologically
arbitrary and requires the rejection of empirical
evidences.38

(3) Divine providence may very well
be compatible with the occurrence of chance or random events. Chance, in the
scientific rather than a philosophical sense, is a description of the natural functionings
of creation, as the Creator has given them. God as Sustainer or Provider definitely does
use chance.

(4) God's goodness may very well be
compatible with natural selection. On the one hand, creaturely suffering is
inseparably intertwined with the normal day-to-day functioning of the biosphere. In
itself, it has nothing to do with evolution. We may consider it incompatible with God's
goodness - thereby attributing it to the fall of a spiritual, free
creature. But we must not deny his providential care in what is happening in nature. On
the other hand, the popular concept of natural selection is coined more by 19th century
atheistic philosophy than by science.39 We have to replace
the metaphor of "struggle for existence" with the scientific concept of differential
reproduction. Furthermore, computer program tournaments have shown that "blind" natural
selection can even favor what we would label as nice and fair behavior.40

If the Bible does not tell us
directly how God creates, perhaps it gives some indirect indications regarding his
"normal ways of acting."

(5) God's creation activity may
even be compatible with the presence of biological death. We certainly must not
give plant death and cell death connected with development and continuous bodily renewal
in animals and man a negative theological connotation. Individual death in animals is
logically unavoidable, as there has been animal life for hundreds of millions of years. Do
we really know whether animal death is bad in God's sight? We certainly cannot claim that
the biological preparation of man's earthly environment was not planned by God, although
it took a few billion years. Whatever negative aspects of death are left, after these
caveats, could be theologically attributable to either the fall of Satan or possibly a
time-transcending aspect of the human fall - just as the redemptive effect
of Christ's death transcends time, having "consequences backwards in time." And some of
the providential dealings of God with believers seem to indicate that, even when human
life is concerned, the negative aspects of biological suffering and death must not be
stressed out of proportion. God is very much more concerned with spiritual death
and life.

Creation Revealed

If the Bible does not tell us directly how
God creates, perhaps it gives some indirect indications regarding his "normal ways of
acting." Are there possible parallels between God's modes of creation and of revelation?
Jesus appeared in completely human form, affected with human frailty (though not with
sin). God's written revelation has been given through human authors, with their cultures
and thought-forms, in human languages. The manuscripts have been copied, sometimes with a
few copying errors, and all of the originals have been lost. The canon has been determined
by fallible humans. I believe that God has kept his hand over the process, but he has done
it in a hidden form. Giving mankind a miraculously written book in finished and
incorruptible form would not be in conformity with God's way of doing things, as manifest
in Scripture. His revealing himself through his Son and through Scripture leaves man the
freedom to believe or not to believe. There is no evidence which logically proves his
authorship. It remains a matter of a faith commitment.

Does the Bible provide any more specific
indications of the divine methods of creation, which might be compared with the empirical
evidence? Of what nature is the declaration of God's authorship in creation?

Whatever can be known regarding
God is evident to them, for God has shown it to them. From the creation of the world
onward his invisible qualities, such as his eternal power and divine nature, have been
discerned mentally through his handiwork. (Romans 1:19-20, Berkeley translation)

But faith
forms...a conviction of unseen realities...By faith we
understand that the worlds were put in order at God's command, so that what we now see did
not come from visible things. (Hebrews 11:3)

Thou openest Thy hand, and they
[the sea mammals] are satisfied with good things...When Thou cuttest off
their breath, in death they return to their dust. Thou sendest Thy Spirit, and more are
created [bara'!], and Thou dost replenish the surface of the earth. (Psalm 104:28-30)

These statements are strangely ambiguousabout how God creates! Are these visible or invisible
realities - natural or supernatural ones? It is a genuine case of
complementary aspects of the same truth. Everyone can clearly see the reality of
creation - yet it is by faith only that one perceives this evidence as
compelling. The biological processes mentioned in the Psalm passage occur "naturally"
- yet they are said to reflect God's creating.

These statements are
strangely ambiguousabouthowGod creates!

God reveals himself to his human creatures
through Scripture and through the created order. But he does not use force of any kind in
this revelation, not even the force of a logical proof. Why this restraint? A proof of the
impossibility of evolution, e.g. by demonstrating that the earth is only a few thousand
years old, would amount to a simple, uncontrovertible proof for the existence of a
Creator. This in itself makes the feasibility of such a proof at least very doubtful.
There is a venerable tradition of "proofs of God," but these may have been conceived as
philosophical or moral arguments, such as Paul's in Rom. 1:19-20, rather than scientific
proofs. God has created human beings as persons, and he respects this dignity he has
chosen to give them. He uses loving moral persuasion and leaves them the freedom of
choice. It appears that, in order to guard human freedom, evidence for creation has to be
hidden in logical ambiguity. God has thrown the veil of stochastics over his footsteps. In
this life, we "walk by faith, not by sight."

As no other scientific hypothesis has been
formulated, there is, at present, no alternative to evolution as God's creation method.
And evolution is even a very attractive option for Christians who believe in the full
inspiration of Scripture!41There seems to
be an inner congruence between developmental processes in nature and the way God deals
with his creation according to Scripture.